Thread: Exclusive: Probe reveals Thai troops' role in civilian deaths

Killings at Wat Pathum Wanaram

Killings at Wat Pathum Wanaram

May 24th, 2011 by Anonymous




This document is an attempt at a close translation of a report allegedly leaked from the Department of Special Investigations (DSI) of Thailand regarding investigations into the deaths of six civilians at Wat Pathum Wanaram in Bangkok on 19 May 2010.

This translation aims to be impartial and highly accurate, and not to comment on the content of the report except where necessary to clarify points of translation. Insofar as it is legal and advisable to do so, this translation may be freely published and redistributed. It is hoped that it will facilitate better-informed discussion of the Wat Pathum case, and of all of the deaths resulting from the events of April and May 2010. However, this report should only be taken as one piece of evidence in the overall picture.

The redactions in the document appear to have been made by the Prachatai staff. Black bars have been replaced herein with [NAME REDACTED] or similar. Sequential numbers have been assigned, in the absence of names, to witness testimony summaries for ease of reference. Numbers in square brackets have also been added to break up a lengthy summary paragraph on pages 14-15, in order to make it easier to follow. Thai names, by and large, are spelled according to the Royal Thai General System of Transcription, the official system for romanization of Thai.

The full translation is available here.

From New Mandala.....


Altering the history of impunity?


May 24th, 2011
by Jennifer Schwarz and Austyn Gaffney, Guest Contributors


“I want to talk about my husband. He was just a normal guy, not a special career, but he loved to see righteousness in society, and this caused him to lose his life.” With her voice shaking, Nittaya Phachua, age 33, stood tensely beside a photograph of her deceased husband. Her husband, Inplaeng Tedwong, was an unarmed taxi driver from Ubon Ratchatani province who was shot in the chest during the Bangkok crackdown of April/May 2010.

“I don’t know who shot him,” Nittaya, a mother of two, recently said at a forum at Khon Kaen University. She only knows the bullets came “from very high up.” Standing with her fist clenched behind her back, Nittaya’s voice trembled, “I want justice for my husband. For my children.”

It has been nearly a year since her husband died, and Nittaya is still waiting for justice.

For those affected by the April/May 2010 crackdown, Thai history offers little reassurance that justice will be attained. After similar bloody crackdowns in 1976 and 1992, the truth was overshadowed by government issued amnesty. No perpetrators have ever stood trial.

As the first anniversary of the 2010 crackdown approaches, how close is Thailand to uncovering the truth behind the 92 people killed and over 2,000 injured? Will victims like Nittaya ever be able to find reconciliation for the loss of their loved ones?

In the past year, five groups have been involved in investigating the April/May crackdown of 2010. One report and one court submission have already been released. Another group has issued an interim report focusing on the roots of the conflict. Two more organizations hope to have reports out this year.

One of those organizations, the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRC) intends to release a report in late June or July. Mr. Sophon Chingchit, Director of the National Human Rights Council of Thailand’s Office of Human Rights Protection, said in an interview that the delay in the report is due to the careful considerations of the report review committee that is scrutinizing the evidence in the report. As the NHRC report is waiting for approval, other reports are moving forward.

“I’m talking about going to court to channel frustrations in the most non-violent way possible,” said Robert Amsterdam, a lawyer for the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) in an interview earlier this month. On January 31, Amsterdam submitted a request to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to conduct an investigation. The submission depicts the government and military as systematically targeting the Red Shirts. It claims that the state had a “policy to suppress any such protests through military force.”

In the aftermath, state officials charged Red Shirts with terrorism, lese majeste, or no specific crime at all, leading to arbitrary detentions.

Amsterdam’s submission calls for Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, along with key government and army officials, to be held “criminally liable under international law for crimes against humanity.”

In many instances, the recent findings of Human Rights Watch (HRW) corroborate the ICC submission, especially in terms of the government’s use of “excessive” and “lethal” force. However the report distinguishes itself by characterizing the crackdown as a violent conflict between two armed groups. The report directly identifies Black Shirts, an armed party during the conflict, saying, “on numerous occasions, the [Red Shirt] protesters were joined by better-armed and fast-moving Black Shirt militants.” At the launch of the report earlier this month, Asia director of HRW Brad Adams said, “in plain view government forces shot protesters and armed militants shot soldiers, but no one has been held responsible.”

Unlike the HRW report, the report from People’s Information Center (PIC), an organization consisting of academics, activists and students, focuses primarily on the human rights violations against Red Shirt victims. The PIC formed in July 2010, and expects to release their full report in December 2011 upon its completion.

In a press release issued last month, the PIC claimed that during violent incidents officers used “improper force in the situation.” It concluded that of 80 victims, “none of the evidence has proved they were armed, or they had any weapons fighting with the government.” As Kwanravee Wangudom of the PIC stated when explaining that no one party can explain exactly what happened, “I’m not saying we are speaking the truth but we can shed light onto what happened.”

While the first three reports focus on finding the truth behind the violence, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) focuses on reaching a common understanding. Commissioned by Prime Minister Abhisit after the crackdown as an autonomous body, the TRCT has until July 2012 to complete its mandate.

According to the first Interim Report from April 2011, the commission seeks to determine the “root causes and precedents of the conflict and violence in the country.” Ultimately, the aim is to create a “culture of compromise and tolerance of different opinions” in order to achieve “long-term national reconciliation.” Recommendations for reconciliation include reaffirming love for the monarchy, compensating affected families, granting bail to detainees, and retracting arbitrary charges of lese majeste and terrorism.

Critics question whether the TRCT is truly an autonomous and toothless body. Somchai Homla-or, chair of the fact-finding subcommittee of the TRCT, revealed that “we haven’t received cooperation from some factions of the military and the police. We don’t have much power, we give opinions and recommendations.” Beyond that, “we don’t have the power to subpoena,” Somchai concluded.

While each report presents a different set of facts and views, all of the groups writing reports have faced a common challenge in their investigations. The government has severely limited access to important information offering evidence to parties responsible for the violence.

The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) was assigned by the government to investigate the killings of last April/May. In December 2010 leaked documents from the DSI showed that from cases of 16 deaths, 13 of those deaths were “likely caused by soldiers” in the line of duty. The DSI later denied these findings.

Gaining accurate information is restricted due to the “official policy of the government of Thailand,” according to the ICC submission. This policy requires state officials “to conceal and/or eliminate all evidence of criminal conduct by the government or the Army leaders in connection with the civilian killings.”

This lack of government accountability mirrors the aftermath of past political demonstrations such as Black May in 1992, when military units shot and killed at least 40 protesters. General Suchinda Kraprayoon granted amnesty to both the perpetrators and the victims of the violence. The government set up a fact-finding panel for the events, which released a report eight years later. Before the report was released to the Thai public, the names of military officials, units, and actions were blacked out or abridged.

Dr. Sriprahpha Petcharamesree of the Centre for Human Rights Studies at Mahidol University has stated, “We are stuck in a system of impunity. We can’t break it without accountability.”

The recent announcement by Pheu Thai party to grant amnesty to all parties involved, contradicts the decision made by Red Shirts on May 10, 2010. Red Shirts rejected amnesty before it was offered putting themselves at risk of facing charges of terrorism and sedition, in the hopes that state officials be charged with the death of civilians. While the cycle of impunity may continue with the Pheu Thai party, a rejection of amnesty would be the first time in Thai history that a violent incident is not forgotten.

The different reports attempt to recall the incident and move the country forward through efforts to be accountable to the Thai public. Dr. Sriprahpha recently stated, “If we compile the reports together, we may see the whole picture better.” This is perhaps the first time in Thai history when that is possible.

While the future of amnesty in Thailand is unclear, “We cannot hold hands and forget like before. The problem will keep occurring, history will keep repeating itself” said Somchai Homla-or.

Even with the reports, Thailand continues to struggle with the meaning of reconciliation. The wounds inflicted by the crackdown remain. For Nittaya, “[Reconciliation is] about bringing the people who are responsible to justice.” However, as she moves forward raising her children alone, she expresses, “but somehow in my heart I still have a conflict with that because it doesn’t substitute for what I have lost.”

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

However, it does not address any of the problems that led to the coup: the systemic corruption, abuse of power, disregard of the parliamentary system and refusal to submit to checks and balances.

Each of which tangibly deteriorated post coup.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Ithink Mr. Thaksin will pay off the families of the victims in lieu ofgiving them truth and closure. Those lifeless bodies will not get thejustice they deserve.

That payoff will not come from his own wealth. It will come from us,the taxpayers. Despite his promise to take good care of the Red Shirtdemonstrators, only the leaders have been taken care of. What he willdo is use taxpayers' money to pay relief money the families of thevictims, and in return he will get his Baht 46 billion.

Speculation, which I guess he is free to do on his private twitter account. I don't know the outcome of it all, but I personally doubt T will get his money back. Regardless of this, the whole point to any 'amnesty' or 'reconciliation' is that T is just one of several parties to it. Under any impartial justice system, there are certain people facing considerably more severe charges (potentially) than Thaksin. Given that PT is about to win the convincing peoples mandate again, they should if anything be relieved.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Is this anacceptable condition of the amnesty?

Great- indulge in rampant speculation, then ask a question based on that. In my view, there are two 'conditions' to a deal that are more criticial to Thailand than Mr Thaksins peace of mind. One is that it keeps the Red shirts off the streets, causing disruption. The other is that it keeps the Army off the streets, killing people.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Mr. Thaksin, on theother hand, will resort to any means necessary to wage his personal vendetta, to win at any cost.

He's already won, because of his enduring popularity. If people stop reducing this to individual personalities for a second, they would realise there are many parties- but the real winner or loser is the country of Thailand. Those who have been behind overturning the rule of law in Thailand and corrupting it's judiciary can hardly squeal about sticking to it's letter now- unless of course they are willing to stand before an impartial court and be judged for their own actions.
There is also the choice of words here- 'personal vendetta'. What personal vendetta? T & PT have spoken of nothing but reconciliation. The Dem's spoke of reconciliation too, but only achieved further division- whilst highlighting the fact that they play second fiddle to the Army, not the People. They are incompetent to govern a democratic state in their current form.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

with Pheu Thai's policy of amnesty, he will destroy the rule of law.

Coming from the titular 'head' of the infamous Abhisit administration, that is indeed rich. Som nam na.

The outcome of the election is fairly certain now, and it is the same as the outcome of the previous four elections. The current political problems of Thailand come down to one simple fact- namely the outcome of three of those four elections were not respected. Whilst I am pretty confident that the people of Thailand have learnt this lesson well, it is uncertain at this stage whether certain individuals with absolutely no respect for the rule of law, and the peoples inalienable Right of Suffrage, have done so. This is the main political question/ problem facing Thailand.

Pick the most illiterate rice farmer as your [innacurate] red shirt proxy, and he too realises the absurdity of the likes of Mark preaching about the "Rule of Law".

Originally Posted by sabang

^ Quite. What stand out most starkly is the utter failure of the 'establishment' to change the minds of the people, or ultimately even control the discourse. They have tried every means, fair & foul. Violent crackdowns, biased media, political bribery, repressive censorship, rigged Judiciary- you name it. To no avail. Quite a loss of face- but unfortunately, in a childish country like Thailand, we now have to worry about the potential reaction of these children to their loss of face.

Don't count them out so fast. They'll either rig the election or form another pro-amart coalition at the point of a gun or through bribery. Maybe both.

The only thing that would thwart them is if the election wasn't rigged and PTP won an outright majority.

There's no way the mafia Triad that run this country are going to allow the will of the masses to elect a government of their choice. They'll just keep playing the same game they've always played, adjusting the intensity of the actions as they feel required to maintain the status quo.

In memory of Hiro Muramoto | Andrew MacGregor Marshall

In memory of Hiro Muramoto

by Andrew M.Marshall
June 26, 2011




On April 10, 2010, Reuters cameraman Hiro Muramoto was shot dead while filming clashes between Thai soldiers, Red Shirt protesters and unknown gunmen in the Rachadamnoen area of Bangkok. He was 43 years old and is survived by his wife, Emiko, and two children. Hiro joined Reuters as a freelance cameraman in 1992 and became full-time in 1995. The final footage he filmed before his death showed him in the thick of the fighting on April 10 – a day in which five soldiers and 20 other civilians were also killed. Among the incidents he filmed was a still unexplained grenade attack that killed Colonel Romklao Thuwatham, a rising military star and deputy chief of staff of the Queen’s Guard.

From the beginning, the evidence on Hiro’s death suggested he was killed by a bullet fired by a Thai soldier. It seems unlikely he was deliberately targeted because he was a journalist; instead, he was killed when soldiers fired live ammunition randomly at protesters. This was the conclusion reached by Thailand’s Department of Special Investigation (DSI), an agency roughly equivalent to the U.S. FBI. Despite being an overtly politicized institution, the DSI still has many honest investigators who make a genuine effort to do their job. The investigators on Hiro’s case concluded that he was most likely shot dead by a soldier in the Royal Thai Army. DSI director general Tharit Pengdith conceded this point in a news conference on November 16, 2010:

Since there was possible involvement by government officers, we have to start from square one by letting police investigate further.

In December, the DSI investigation report on Hiro and another report on the killing of six civilians in the Wat Pathum Wanaram temple on May 19, 2010, were leaked to Reuters. The leaked document on Hiro confirmed the DSI’s conclusion that the Thai military was probably responsible for his death, and that the case had been handed to police for further investigation. DSI chief Tharit denied to the Thai media that the documents were genuine, but in conversations with Reuters he conceded they were genuine but preliminary.

As is standard in Reuters when a member of staff is killed in the line of duty, Reuters commissioned an independent investigation by a professional security company. The company used was one of the leaders in the field; the probe was conducted by experts in forensic investigation. Their report also concluded that Hiro was killed by a bullet fired by a Thai soldier, probably not specifically targeted. It added that the bullet that killed Hiro was most likely to have been standard military issue, and not from an AK47 or pistol. This report was kept confidential within Reuters management, but I became aware of the key findings.

In late February 2011, DSI officials began to state that they had uncovered new evidence that Hiro had been killed by an AK47 bullet and that this absolved the military of blame:

Thai investigators have concluded the fatal bullet was of 7.62 mm caliber and that soldiers were armed with M-16 rifles that fire 5.56 mm bullets, the Director General of the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) told a news conference.

“The bullet that shot Muramoto was 7.62 mm not M-16 that was used by the authorities,” Tharit said. “It could be an AK-47 or something similar … but exactly who shot him I can’t answer at this point. We need more investigation.”

Disturbingly, it transpired that this conclusion was based on the opinion of a single source, former police Lieutenant General Amporn Jarujinda, purely on the basis of viewing photographs of Hiro’s wounds. As the Bangkok Post reported:

Former police forensic science chief Amporn Jarujinda, who is now an adviser to the DSI and has reviewed a report on the cameraman’s autopsy, suggested recently that the man was killed with an AK-47 rifle.

Mr Tharit and Pol Lt Gen Amporn would meet reporters today to present the findings of the panel on the cause of death of Muramoto and 10 others who died in the street clashes.

The source said that while Pol Lt Gen Amporn might be providing advice to the DSI, he was not among the people who observed the autopsy to determine the cause of death of Muramoto. He was overseas at the time.

Pol Lt Gen Amporn only analysed the cause of Muramoto’s death from photos of the wounds on his body and concluded that the wounds were caused by an AK-47 rifle.

Furthermore, the sudden U-turn followed widespread reports that hardline army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha had paid a call on DSI director Tharit to remonstrate with him over the initial preliminary conclusions. The Thai military continues to claim – bizarrely and unsupportably – that it was not responsible for any deaths or even any injuries during violent clashes in Bangkok in April and May 2010, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary. This was also reported in the Bangkok Post:

The army is breathing a sigh of relief after a Department of Special Investigation (DSI) report concluded troops were not responsible for the death of a Japanese cameraman during last year’s red shirt protests.

However, the relief may be short-lived, amid claims that the army chief of staff paid the DSI head a visit to complain about an initial department finding which claimed the opposite – that soldiers should in fact be blamed for Japanese cameraman Hiroyuki Muramoto’s death during the rally at Khok Wua intersection on April 10 last year.

The DSI is likely to face questions about why it changed its stance, though DSI director-general Tharit Pengdit yesterday stood by the latest report, saying it was based on scientific and forensic findings. He also denied meeting the army chief of staff.

The weapons report, which he did not release, found that the Reuters News Agency cameraman was shot dead with an AK-47 rifle while covering the clashes.

In that case, troops could not be blamed for the death, said the report, because they carried different weapons.

Mr Tharit said Muramoto’s body was found with AK-47 bullet wound patterns. Soldiers had not used the weapon, he said.

The Bangkok Post also reported on comments by Amporn and Tharith during their news conference, in which Amporn claimed to have been able to verify the type of bullet that killed Hiro – just by looking at photographs – with remarkable ease:

Is it true that the wounds of the red shirt victims were so severe that forensic workers found it almost impossible to establish the type of firearms that killed them?

Pol Lt Gen Amporn: We could tell in some cases. There are cases where we couldn’t.

Why did it take almost a year to determine the type of firearms?

Pol Lt Gen Amporn: I don’t know. I figured it out in an hour.

Could you explain why the first examination did not mention anything about an AK-47 rifle?

Mr Tharit: The DSI never specified the type of firearm. We have a witness who claimed to be standing close to Mr Muramoto. He saw that the cameraman was shot but he didn’t know where the shot came from. He is convinced the bullet was fired from where security forces were. The DSI has just one witness. So the department assumed Mr Muramoto’s death was related to the security forces and forwarded the case to the Metropolitan Police Bureau for forensic examination.

The bureau does autopsies and it takes charge of cases related to government forces. The DSI received more information about Mr Muramoto’s case and forwarded it to the bureau.

Why was Pol Lt Gen Amporn’s report not included in the first investigative report?

Mr Tharit: This is because the examination of the wound patterns took place after the DSI sent the report to the bureau.

Why did it take so long?

Mr Tharit: We just invited Pol Lt Gen Amporn to take part in the process because his contribution would make the investigation more thorough and comprehensive.

What about the other victims? Were they killed by the same type of bullet?

Pol Lt Gen Amporn: Those are smaller wounds, as far as I remember.

Can you specify the type of firearms?

Pol Lt Gen Amporn: I can’t.

Were there similar wounds on other victims’ bodies?

Pol Lt Gen Amporn: I haven’t seen any so far.

Mr Muramoto’s case is different, isn’t it?

Pol Lt Gen Amporn: Yes.

Can you tell from the wound if he was shot from the front or from behind?

Pol Lt Gen Amporn: The bullet was fired from the front. The entry wound was in the right chest and the exit wound was through the right shoulder blade.

Can the ballistics report tell if the shot was fired from where security forces were?

Pol Lt Gen Amporn: No.

Are SKS carbines and 05-NATO guns used in Thailand?

Pol Lt Gen Amporn: Yes. Otherwise I wouldn’t have mentioned them.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) issued a statement raising concerns that a whitewash was under way:

“The contradiction of the preliminary findings of the investigation into journalist Hiro Muramoto’s death raises questions about the independence of the government’s investigation,” said Shawn Crispin, CPJ’s senior Southeast Asia representative. “We are particularly concerned by reports that a senior military official may have pressured the DSI into censoring its initial findings.”

Among others to raise grave doubts about the DSI’s new findings was the deputy commander of Bangkok Metropolitan Police, Lieutenant General Amnuay Nimmano:

It’s DSI’s own theory, own leads, own investigation and own conclusion, without police getting involved, and based on nothing convincing or credible. To put it simply, the conclusion is simply muddled.

Because I was aware of the third-party investigation commissioned by Reuters, and its findings that the evidence suggested Hiro was shot by a military issue bullet and not an AK47, I sent an e-mail at this time to senior Asia editorial managers asking permission to report excerpts from the investigation conclusions. I never received a formal reply but was informally told by other managers that the Asia editor was “irritated” by my intervention. I found this very troubling, and I privately and confidentially contacted senior managers based in the United States to discuss my concerns.

As a former Baghdad bureau chief, and subsequently managing editor of Reuters for the whole Middle East region, I have been directly involved in company investigations into the deaths of six colleagues:

• Reuters cameraman of three of my Iraqi staff by U.S. soldiers during three days when they were detained near Falluja in January 2004. So it is fair to say I have considerable experience of sensitive investigations within Reuters. I am well aware of the need to work with authorities to help uncover the truth rather than alienating them by being overly shrill and accusatory. I am also aware of the necessity of taking a robust stance at times when the authorities appear to be failing in their duties to transparently and honestly investigate the circumstances of such incidents. The bottom line is: we work with the authorities to help uncover the truth. We have no interest in a witch-hunt, or in making unsupported accusations. Our goal – as it is in our journalism – is simply to find the truth. And from that, accountability and justice can follow.
  
  It is also worth putting on record that in all the cases I was closely involved with, senior Reuters management were fully supportive and, when necessary, courageous.
  
  Things were very different when it came to Hiro, however. I was troubled to discover from senior management sources that not only was Reuters not allowing me to report the findings of the third-party investigation the company had conducted, but that it had also failed to even share these findings privately with the Thai authorities. It is sometimes necessary to maintain confidentiality about sensitive investigations while working with national and/or military and police authorities: sometimes going public too soon will alienate people we need to co-operate with. But in my experience, it is unprecedented for Reuters to not even share internal findings privately with the relevant authorities: it leaves the company exposed to the accusation it has failed in its duty to assist the authorities in their job uncovering the truth. I sent detailed messages to senior managers explaining why I thought the behaviour of Reuters on Hiro was both unethical and counterproductive. Some time later I was told that a decision had been made to redact the third-party investigation report and remove the name of the company that conducted the investigation and also remove the names of sources who provide information. A redacted extract would be provided privately to Thai authorities. I considered this inadequate in many ways but nevertheless better than nothing, and waited for progress.
  
  On March 24, Thai police officially “confirmed” the DSI’s new findings that there was no evidence Hiro had been killed by the Thai military.
  
  April 10 was the first anniversary of Hiro’s death. A few days beforehand, the Reuters managing editor for Asia circulated an e-mail notifying staff that a minute’s silence would be held in his memory. I replied asking once again – in my capacity as a senior editor with responsibility for political and general news coverage on Thailand, among other countries – whether I could report on the evidence in Reuters possession suggesting authorities were lying in their latest findings on Hiro. I was given a stern talking to. Among the reasons I was given for the company’s failure to share the information was that under Thai law it had been illegal for them to commission a third-party investigation into Hiro’s death, and that when commissioning the report, their agreement with the company that handled the investigation was that it would remain confidential. I did not consider these adequate reasons to withhold important findings about Hiro’s death, and I said so.
  
  On April 11, senior Asia-based Reuters management staff met DSI chief Tharit in Bangkok to discuss progress in the investigation on Hiro. Unaccountably, they failed to share the redacted text that Reuters had prepared. I was later told that it had been decided to hand the redacted text personally to Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva himself, at an as-yet unconfirmed private meeting. The Bangkok Post reported on the meeting:
  Mr Tharit said DSI investigators had explained all the facts surrounding the official investigation into Muramoto’s death to the Reuters representatives during their one-hour meeting.
  
  He said he had no idea whether the two were satisfied with his clarifications, saying they appeared passive and did not submit any additional documents to the DSI.
  
  “I propose to the Reuters news agency to help seek further facts and evidence because, by doing this, any witness to the crime might be daring enough to provide tip-offs to Reuters more than they would to the [Thai] state officials,” Mr Tharit said.
  
  “After that, Reuters could relay this [given] information to the DSI for further investigation.”
  
  The representatives said they would take the DSI’s proposal into consideration and get back to the department later.
  
  They would occasionally ask about progress of the case, Mr Tharit said.
  
  The Reuters editors declined to give details of the talks but issued a statement saying the agency had been granted a meeting with Thai officials to discuss the investigation of Muramoto’s death.
  As is by now widely known, I resigned from Reuters on June 3 in order to publish a lengthy story on Thailand based on thousands of leaked U.S. diplomatic cables. That story can be found here. Reuters decided the story was too risky to run, given its substantial presence in Thailand. As I wrote in the story and a companion piece in the Independent newspaper, I understood that decision and did not criticize Reuters for it. My resignation marked the end of my ability to intercede with editors about Hiro while working inside the company. But I awaited the promised meeting with Abhisit in which Reuters would share its information with him.
  
  On June 14, Reuters had an exclusive interview with Abhisit. They did not share the information.
  
  I am therefore now sharing the key passage from the third-party report commissioned by Reuters. I am maintaining confidentiality on the name of the company that conducted the investigation, and other details. If Reuters chooses to contest the authenticity of the extract I am sharing, I will provide more detailed documentary evidence. I am sharing this information reluctantly and with no desire to undermine Reuters, which I still consider to be a news organization that deserves respect, not to mention a place where many fine colleagues and friends still work. But it has become clear that the inept, unethical and counterproductive behaviour of some senior management staff in Asia will prevent Reuters ever uncovering the truth about Hiro unless action is taken. It is my hope that Reuters learns from this experience and never again entrusts such important decisions to those lacking the ability to behave sensibly and ethically in sensitive situations. Hiro’s family and friends, and all of the staff of Reuters, deserve better. The extract from the third-party report is reproduced below. It is verbatim apart from redactions signified by Xs in the text:
  Hiro Muramoto (‘Hiro’) was shot, almost certainly by a 5.56mm high velocity round, on 10 April in Dinso Road, West Bangkok at 21:01/2 Bangkok time.
  
  XXXXXXX was not able to sight an official autopsy report or any forensics carried out on his body. However, an interview with the surgeon in charge of triage at the BMA (Klang) Hospital on 10 April stated Hiro ultimately died from a tension pneumothorax precipitated by massive internal bleeding. The surgeon speculated that such bleeding would cause death within two minutes of initiation. The ambulance crew that transported Hiro to hospital stated they could find no vital signs and the doctor who examined him at the Klang Hospital declared him ‘dead before arrival’.
  
  The entry wound that caused Hiro’s death was centred below the clavicle and pectoral, centred on the heart. The surgeon interviewed by XXXXXXX confirmed the wound to be consisted with that caused by a bullet. Hiro also exhibited an exit wound on the left tricep. Such a non-linear exit wound is consistent with the impact of a high-velocity 5.56mm standard Nato issue round (and inconsistent with, for example, the impact of a .38 pistol shot, a rubber bullet, or a round fired by an AK47 assault rifle).
  It’s time for Reuters to start working to help uncover the truth, rather than collude in suppressing it.